Lawvable@Awesome Legal Skills

Restructure any rough build, research, or legal-drafting request into an IRAC-shaped prompt — Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion — optimized for a frontier model. It's the bar-exam framework, repurposed as prompt engineering. The skill leads with the issue and ends with the conclusion (where models weight attention most), forces you to name your constraints and non-goals, and specifies what "good" looks like before a single token is generated. Use it before any non-trivial build, or whenever a vague ask deserves a precise brief.

Verification-first methodology for the post-WWII tribunals: the IMT at Nuremberg, the twelve Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and the IMTFE at Tokyo. Citations are verified against the official records (Blue/Green Series, Pritchard-Zaide) and the digital archives (Avalon, Harvard NTP, UVA IMTFE). Guards the four classic traps (IMT vs NMT; Nuremberg vs Tokyo; Charter article numbers; majority judgment vs separate opinions, e.g. the Pal dissent). Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

Reviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them. Works under s.203 ERA 1996 for England & Wales. Flags apparent s.203 condition gaps for a solicitor to confirm (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, identification, insurance, statement of conditions), drafts the substantive terms (sum, tax characterisation, confidentiality, references, restrictive covenants, indemnities), and surfaces enforceability risks. Does not rule on validity and is not legal advice. Use when the user says 'review this settlement agreement', 'draft a settlement agreement', 'compromise agreement' (old term), or asks whether an agreement is binding.

Approval cascade definition and tracking for multi-stakeholder document workflows. Internal review sequences, client approval workflows, regulatory review, overdue chasing with escalation logic, version control coordination, and cross-jurisdiction document dependencies. Use when defining who reviews a document and in what order, tracking where a document is stuck in the approval chain, chasing an overdue reviewer, preventing reviewers working on superseded drafts, or mapping dependencies between documents across jurisdictions. Trigger on: 'who needs to approve this', 'document approval', 'review sequence', 'stuck in review', 'overdue approval', 'who has the document', 'version control', 'wrong version', 'document dependency', 'NL SPA waiting on German opinion', 'approval cascade', 'review chain', 'document circulation', 'chasing the partner', 'client approval process', 'where is the document'.

Performs structured compliance review, clause redlining, and drafting suggestions for legal documents (privacy policies, data processing agreements, vendor and SaaS contracts) against India's DPDPA 2023 and the EU GDPR. Flags clauses as compliant, at-risk, or non-compliant with reasoning, and proposes ready-to-use model replacement language.

Expertise complète en droit français des étrangers, de l'asile et de la nationalité — entrée et visas, séjour (CESEDA livre IV, AES, étranger malade, regroupement familial, métiers en tension), éloignement et contentieux (OQTF, IRTF, rétention, référés, TA/CAA/CE), asile (OFPRA, CNDA, Dublin, CMA/ADA), nationalité et droits sociaux des étrangers (AME, PUMa, RSA, AAH, ASPA). Interroge en priorité trois connecteurs MCP complémentaires — OpenLegi (textes, jurisprudence administrative), LibreJustice (recherche sémantique tous ordres) et Legal Data Hunter (rétention/JLD, graphe de citations, statut de validité) — puis les sources officielles (Légifrance, ANEF, OFPRA, CNDA) et la doctrine associative (GISTI, Cimade, ADDE, Comede, Anafé). Déclencher dès qu'une question porte sur un étranger en France, même sans vocabulaire juridique — « papier de la préfecture », « récépissé périmé », « la CAF refuse le RSA » — et pour toute consultation, recours, note ou vérification de références dans ces matières.

Skill open source d'analyse documentaire à vocation scientifique sur la gouvernance des sociétés cotées françaises (SBF 120). Il agrège, sous forme d'index sourcés à la page près, le corpus réglementaire et doctrinal 2020-2025 — rapports AMF et HCGE, Code AFEP-MEDEF, doctrine AMF, priorités ESMA, rapport sénatorial Rietmann/Gay, guide Paris Europlace — complété par recherche web. Sa règle fondatrice est le zéro invention : chaque chiffre, citation et page provient d'une source vérifiée, mot pour mot, en distinguant strictement le régulateur (AMF, ESMA) de la soft law (HCGE, AFEP-MEDEF). Quatre usages : restitution sourcée, analyse longitudinale, audit d'émetteur sur une grille de 13 blocs, croisement thématique multi-émetteurs. Ni conseil juridique, ni conseil en investissement.

Use this skill when asked to review data protection or privacy compliance under Icelandic law and GDPR. Triggers on requests involving personal data processing, privacy policies, DPIA assessments, kennitala handling, Persónuvernd filings, or cross-border data transfers from Iceland.

Invoice review, non-compliance flagging, rejection communication, billing trend analysis, and conversation preparation for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel. Review invoices against billing guidelines; flag block billing, prohibited fees, rate violations, staffing violations, late submission. Produce line-item review report and approval note. Draft rejection letter to outside counsel. Build invoice review checklist. Analyse billing trends across multiple invoices and produce a structured conversation guide for the relationship review. Identify systemic patterns and produce formal non-compliance notice. Trigger on: 'review this invoice', 'flag billing issues', 'check invoice against guidelines', 'write the rejection letter', 'build an invoice checklist', 'block billing', 'UTBMS', 'billing non-compliance', 'analyse our invoices', 'billing trends', 'prep for the billing conversation', 'relationship review', 'the firm keeps doing this', 'escalate'.

Verification-first methodology for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office (The Hague, applying Kosovo law). Citations are verified against scp-ks.org before use; appeal registry numbers are cited only once confirmed. Covers Thaçi et al., Mustafa, Pjetër Shala and Gucati & Haradinaj. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

Calendar litigation and arbitration deadlines from a scheduling order. Parses a PDF scheduling order, identifies key dates, computes backward deadlines using the applicable rules (Colorado CRCP, Federal FRCP, or arbitration forum rules for AAA/JAMS), and generates an .ics calendar file for Outlook or Google Calendar import. Use this skill whenever the user mentions: litigation deadlines, scheduling order, case management order, deadline calendaring, discovery deadlines, trial preparation deadlines, arbitration scheduling, or anything related to computing or tracking court or arbitration deadlines. Also trigger when the user uploads a PDF that appears to be a court scheduling order or arbitration scheduling order.

Adjudicates whether a hit generated by sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media screening is a true positive, false positive, or requires human escalation. Use whenever a user presents a screening alert, a name match against a watchlist (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK OFSI, UN list, PEP list, adverse media hit, etc.), or asks to clear a screening hit / reduce false positives / determine whether a flagged name is actually the listed party. Use even when the user describes the task casually — "is this person actually on the sanctions list", "did we get a real match", "clear this alert", "I have a hit on X" — these are all screening-adjudication tasks. Produces a deterministic determination with full audit trail (structured JSON + human-readable narrative). Designed for use by compliance analysts and screening systems.

Verification-first methodology for the Special Panels for Serious Crimes of the Dili District Court (UNTAET, 2000–2006). Citations are verified against JSMP, the UN archives and legal-tools.org. Covers the Los Palos case, the Serious Crimes Unit caseload (391 indicted; about 88 tried) and the SPSC-vs-Jakarta distinction. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

Stakeholder mapping, communication plan design, reporting hierarchy, and mid-matter comms updates. Use when setting up a new matter and needing to identify who needs what information, designing the communication rhythm, building reporting structures for multi-jurisdiction programmes, or updating the comms plan when the stakeholder landscape changes. Trigger on: 'stakeholder map', 'who needs to be kept informed', 'communication plan', 'reporting structure', 'who do we report to', 'how often do we meet', 'client wants more updates', 'new contact on the client side', 'build the comms plan', 'reporting hierarchy', 'HQ vs regions', 'who is the decision maker', 'comms rhythm', 'meeting cadence', 'status call schedule'.

Verification-first methodology for the UNMIK Regulation 64 Panels of the Kosovo district courts (2000–2008). Citations are verified against UNMIK/EULEX archives and legal-tools.org. Keeps the Reg. 64 Panels distinct from the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and clarifies that Reg. 2000/64 permitted (did not impose) internationally-majority panels. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

Guide for (a) auditing an existing whistleblower system or (b) drafting a compliant reporting policy from a provided template. Covers EU Directive 2019/1937, the amended Sapin II law (Waserman 2022), Decree 2022-1284, CNIL guidelines, public sector requirements, and duty of vigilance.

Classify AI systems under the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) and determine compliance obligations. Use when asked to assess AI risk level, check if an AI system is prohibited, determine high-risk status, identify GPAI model obligations, map provider/deployer responsibilities, or build an AI Act compliance roadmap. Covers the full classification decision tree (Prohibited → High-Risk → Limited → Minimal → GPAI), obligations by role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor), compliance timelines, and DACH-specific considerations (German works council, BaFin, BSI, BNetzA). Triggers on phrases like "classify this AI system", "is this high-risk under the AI Act", "AI Act risk assessment", "EU AI Act compliance", "prohibited AI practice", "GPAI obligations", "AI Act timeline".

Use this skill when asked to review, analyze, or draft a contract governed by Icelandic law. Triggers on requests involving Icelandic commercial agreements, consumer contracts, sales agreements, service contracts, or any contract where Icelandic mandatory rules may apply.

Routes any legal task to the right LLM, like OpenRouter but for legal work and grounded in benchmarks instead of brand loyalty. Built from mid-2026 legal evals (legalbenchmarks.ai, Vals AI × Stanford LegalBench across 124 models, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, the Atticus Project's CUAD/MAUD/ACORD) plus translation evidence (WMT25, SwiLTra-Bench, ArabLegalEval). Covers five verticals: contract drafting, info extraction, legal research, contract review, and legal translation (including Arabic/MENA). Each asks up to four questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then returns a primary model, a fallback, what to avoid, and what a human must verify. Core principle: capability is not controllability, so every route ends with a verification step. Not legal advice; a lawyer owns the output.

GDPR Legitimate Interest Assessment (LIA) — Guided assessment for Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR using the EDPB three-step test. Based on EDPB Guidelines 1/2024, EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (AI models), the OSS Case Digest on Legitimate Interest (McIntyre 2026), CNIL AI guidance (June 2025), ICO guidance, and key CJEU case law. Use when: (1) user needs to assess whether legitimate interest is appropriate, (2) user asks about Art. 6(1)(f), "Interessenabwägung", "berechtigtes Interesse", "balancing test", or "LIA", (3) user wants to document a legitimate interest assessment, (4) user mentions the three-step test, (5) user evaluates necessity or proportionality under Art. 6(1)(f), (6) user discusses direct marketing, fraud prevention, IT security, employee monitoring, AI training, web scraping, or credit checks in context of legal basis, (7) user handles a right to object (Art. 21), (8) user asks about children's data, profiling, or cross-border data sharing under legitimate interest, (9) user compares legitimate interest against o

Create original, competition-ready commercial mediation problems and confidential packets with iterative validation. Use when a user provides a topic, industry, dispute sketch, or existing general-information packet and wants a public packet plus confidential packets for both sides—or one named side. Build a narrow but workable settlement corridor; verify factual and numerical consistency, information asymmetry, balance, originality, and commercial feasibility; and revise until deterministic and semantic exit criteria pass. Do not use merely to summarize an existing packet or to advise parties in a real dispute. Requires local file access; Python 3 is recommended for bundled deterministic checks, with disclosed manual fallbacks when unavailable.

Evaluate completed mediation-competition problems consisting of general information and confidential packets for both sides. Use when asked to validate, audit, score, quality-control, or assess competition readiness; identify factual, numerical, chronological, authority, commercial-logic, or confidentiality defects; test mediation usefulness, BATNAs, settlement corridors, information asymmetry, and opportunities for firmness, cooperation, imagination, and clarification; or produce an author-only validation report. Perform a qualified partial review when packets are missing. Diagnose by default; do not generate a new problem or edit source packets unless repairs are expressly requested. Requires access to all supplied files and a host capable of reading their formats; otherwise disclose the unreviewed material and resulting limits.

AI-assisted generation of MCQs (multiple-choice questionnaires) with export to Moodle (GIFT, XML), Wooclap (Excel), Kahoot!, and Word. Supports light MCQs (gamified) and in-depth MCQs (evaluative), with single-answer and multiple-answer formats.

AFA design, scope-to-fee matching, negotiation preparation, health check, and scope dispute assessment for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel arrangements. Design fee structures (fixed, capped, collar, blended, phased, success). Assess whether scope supports a proposed AFA. Prepare commercial positions for fee negotiations. Review existing AFAs against delivery data. Assess OOS claims and build dispute response. Trigger on: 'structure the fee', 'move off hourly', 'design an AFA', 'does scope support a fixed fee?', 'negotiate the fee', 'renegotiate the arrangement', 'is our AFA holding?', 'fee health check', 'cap is being approached', 'firm is claiming OOS', 'is this in scope?', 'is this OOS?', 'AI should reduce the cost', 'blended rate vs fixed', 'collar arrangement', 'phased fees'.

Use when a calculator, financial model, investor memo, due diligence report, risk review, dashboard, or client-facing explanation needs clear distinctions between accounting and finance concepts such as cash flow vs profit, EBIT vs EBITDA, CapEx vs OpEx, debt vs equity, market value vs book value, ROI vs ROE, assets vs liabilities, and accounting vs finance.

Elite incident response and legal compliance guidance for data breaches under GDPR Articles 33 & 34. Use when: (1) User reports a data breach or security incident — including "is this even a personal data breach?" triage, (2) User asks about breach notification obligations or deadlines, (3) User mentions "72 hours", Art. 33, Art. 34, or notification requirements, (4) Discussion involves security incidents affecting personal data, (5) User needs breach risk assessment using ENISA methodology, (6) User mentions "Data Breach" or "Incident" or "Data Leakage" or "Ransomware" or "Exfiltration", (7) User needs to determine Controller vs Processor obligations, (8) Cross-border breach scenarios requiring Lead SA determination, (9) User needs a mitigation playbook or immediate response recommendations, (10) User needs audit-ready breach documentation (.docx) or an EDPB-template-aligned breach notification / evidence file — including follow-up and withdrawal notifications, (11) Breach involves an AI system requiring AI

Use this skill when asked to analyze how Iceland has implemented an EU directive or regulation into national law, identify gaps between EU/EEA law and Icelandic implementation, or assess Iceland's compliance with EEA obligations. Triggers on questions about EEA transposition, ESA infringement, or EU-Iceland legal gaps.

Research, drafting, and analysis involving the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute system). Enforces a verification-first methodology — every case-law, decision, filing, warrant, and statement citation is verified against an authoritative primary source (icc-cpi.int, legal-tools.org) in the current conversation before it appears in an output. Foundational texts (Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, RPE, Regulations of the Court) may be cited from project knowledge when present. Use whenever the user is working with ICC case law, OTP statements, ASP documents, or ICC procedure.

EU Digital Regulation Legal Analysis Forge — generates a tailored expert prompt for structured legal analysis of an EU digital-regulation document, optionally executes it in-session, and always produces a plain-English explainer alongside the formal output. Handles Regulations, Directives, Commission Guidelines, EDPB Opinions, CJEU and AG judgments, national DPA decisions, codes of conduct, and draft consultations across the EU digital stack.

Produces properly-formatted legal documents in Word (.docx). The user provides the substantive content (instructions, attached files, project knowledge); the skill handles document architecture and formatting. * No precedent or template required * Seven document families: agreements, corporate documents, litigation, memos, employment, policies, correspondence * Jurisdiction-agnostic — works across any legal system the user specifies * Multi-Chain numbering, defined-terms convention, structured recitals, atomic signature blocks * Also reformats existing .docx to a consistent house style * Works in Claude.ai, Cowork, and Claude for Word

>Ce skill donne accès à l'API de judilibre. Vous formulez votre demande en français, il interroge la base Judlibre et renvoie les réponses. Attention le skill ne fonctionne que si des domaines supplémentaires sont utilisés et que l'utilisateur a rentré sa propre clé Judlibre. Ce skill et son auteur n'ont aucun lien avec la Cour de cassation ou Judilibre

Sanctions and export control analysis tool for Claude Desktop. Real-time individual screening across 30+ official lists (UN, EU, OFAC, OFSI, French DGT...), sectoral analysis, dual-use goods (EU Reg. 2021/821), US/China extraterritorial regimes (EAR, ITAR, FDPR, ECL), USD/SWIFT risk and jurisdictional mapping across 30+ countries. All results sourced and verified in real time — no memory-based answers. Responds in French, English, German, Spanish, Russian and Chinese. Updated 19 May 2026 (EU 20th package, UK SEUC, Cuba EO). Indicative guidance only — not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Citations are verified against the STL legacy archive and legal-tools.org. Covers the Ayyash et al. case, the two contempt cases (STL-14-05 New TV/Al-Khayat and STL-14-06 Akhbar Beirut/Al-Amin), and the 2011 terrorism decision. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

Analyse systématique d'un Data Processing Agreement (DPA) au regard de l'article 28 RGPD, des lignes directrices EDPB 07/2020 et 02/2024, des CCT 2021 (décision d'exécution 2021/914), des recommandations EDPB 01/2020 (mesures supplémentaires post-Schrems II), et du Règlement (UE) 2024/1689 (Règlement IA). Produit un rapport structuré clause par clause (18 clauses : 13 obligatoires + 5 complémentaires) avec diagnostic 🟢/🟡/🔴, remédiations prêtes à insérer, analyse détaillée des transferts internationaux, vérification Règlement IA, et questions à poser au fournisseur. Triggers : "analyse de DPA", "audit DPA", "vérifier un DPA", "DPA fournisseur", "data processing agreement", "art. 28 RGPD", "sous-traitant RGPD", "négociation DPA", "review DPA", "conformité contrat sous-traitance".

Translate legal documents from any language into English while preserving .docx formatting and translating track changes and headers/footers. Use this skill whenever the user asks to translate a legal document, contract, deed, agreement, or any formal legal text into English. Also trigger when the user mentions translating .docx files that contain legal content, or asks for a "format-preserving translation" of a legal document. This skill covers all legal domains: finance, M&A, corporate, IP, real estate, regulatory, consumer, taxes, litigation, SaaS and more. Even if the user just says "translate this contract" or "translate this into English", use this skill if the document is legal in nature.

Translate legal documents from any language into English while preserving .docx formatting and translating track changes and headers/footers. Use this skill whenever the user asks to translate a legal document, contract, deed, agreement, or any formal legal text into English. Also trigger when the user mentions translating .docx files that contain legal content, or asks for a "format-preserving translation" of a legal document. This skill covers all legal domains: finance, M&A, corporate, IP, real estate, regulatory, consumer, taxes, litigation, SaaS and more. Even if the user just says "translate this contract" or "translate this into English", use this skill if the document is legal in nature.

Use this skill when asked about forming, registering, or structuring a company in Iceland. Triggers on questions about Icelandic business entities (ehf, hf, sf, svf, ses), capital requirements, registration with Fyrirtækjaskrá, governance structures, or choosing the right entity type.

Use this skill when asked to find, cite, analyze, or summarize Icelandic court decisions. Triggers on requests involving Hæstiréttur (Supreme Court), Landsréttur (Court of Appeal), Félagsdómur (Labour Court), héraðsdómur (District Court) case law, or Icelandic legal precedent research.

Use this skill when asked to translate, explain, or map Icelandic legal terms to English (or vice versa). Triggers on requests involving Icelandic legal vocabulary, legal translation, understanding Icelandic statutes or court decisions, or cross-referencing Icelandic and common law concepts.

Wyszukiwanie, pobieranie i analiza aktów prawnych UE oraz polskich aktów i projektów wdrażających regulacje UE (np. PPWR, CBAM, EUDR, ESPR, CSRD, CSDDD, GPSR, AI Act, baterie, ekoprojekt). Używaj, gdy użytkownik potrzebuje statusu prawnego, dat stosowania, przepisów przejściowych, relacji aktów, obowiązków compliance i raportu z podstawami prawnymi oraz źródłami urzędowymi.

Panel health assessment, firm exit management, coverage gap analysis, and panel refresh brief for in-house legal ops teams. Produce an annual Panel Health Report synthesising scorecard data, billing compliance, and step-out patterns into per-firm recommendations — Retain, Watch, Improvement Plan, or Exit Review. Produce a firm exit pack: formal exit notice with active matter transition plan, plus an internal exit record. Identify practice area, geographic, or tier gaps and produce a structured Coverage Gap Report with remediation options. Produce a Panel Refresh Brief as a scoped input to the RFP process. Trigger on: 'review our panel', 'annual panel review', 'is our panel working', 'which firms should we exit', 'write the exit notice', 'coverage gap', 'we don't have anyone for restructuring', 'refresh the panel', 'panel rationalisation', 'too many firms', 'step-out problem', 'do we have the right firms'.

Orientação completa sobre conformidade com regulamentações do Banco Central do Brasil: Resolução CMN nº 4.893/2021 (Política de Segurança Cibernética), Resolução BCB nº 85/2021 (GRSIC), Open Finance Brasil (Resoluções BCB nº 32/2020 e atualizações), e demais normas prudenciais do BACEN. Cobre elaboração e revisão de Política de Segurança Cibernética, Plano de Ação e Resposta a Incidentes (PARI), Gestão de Riscos de Serviços de Informação e Comunicação (GRSIC), consentimento e compartilhamento de dados no Open Finance, requisitos de API, gestão de terceiros (outsourcing) e sanções do BACEN. Triggers: Bacen, Banco Central, CMN 4.893, Resolução 4.893, segurança cibernética bancária, PARI, GRSIC, Open Finance, Open Banking, compartilhamento de dados financeiros, consentimento Open Finance, API financeira, outsourcing bancário, risco cibernético, incidente cibernético banco, LGPD financeira, fintech compliance, instituição financeira, DICT, Pix segurança.

Capture, structure, and recycle lessons from active and closed legal matters. Three modes: in-flight capture (triggered by scope changes, risk events, status updates — highest value), mid-matter review (phase gates or quarterly), and matter close retrospective (full structured findings). Lessons are formatted for immediate reuse, not filed and forgotten. Use when a risk materialises, a scope change lands, a phase completes, or a matter closes and you want to convert what happened into something useful for the next matter. Trigger on: 'capture a lesson', 'what did we learn', 'matter close', 'retrospective', 'lessons learned', 'what went wrong', 'what worked', 'phase gate review', 'debrief', 'extract the learning', 'close the matter', 'what should we do differently', 'pattern from this matter', 'improve the next one'.

Méthodologie « verification-first » pour les Chambres Africaines Extraordinaires (procès Hissène Habré, Dakar). Toute citation est vérifiée (forumchambresafricaines.org, legal-tools.org). Couvre le jugement du 30 mai 2016, l'arrêt d'appel du 27 avril 2017 (réparations de 82,290 milliards FCFA pour 7 396 victimes), et la compétence universelle. Aide à la recherche, pas un conseil juridique. Fait partie de la bibliothèque open source « Skills for International Justice » — méthodologie : github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

Asesor experto en litigación bajo sistemas de derecho civil (civil law) en América Latina. Asiste a abogados litigantes, equipos legales internos y clientes directos con estrategia procesal, análisis de riesgos, opciones tácticas, plazos y orientación sobre el proceso civil en múltiples jurisdicciones. Al final de cada sesión redacta un correo electrónico claro que resume los hallazgos para el cliente.

Firm-matter matching, matter instruction drafting, firm onboarding checklist, and instruction audit for in-house legal ops teams. Match a new matter to the right panel firm by practice area, jurisdiction, complexity, and cost tier. Produce a structured matter instruction with scope, timeline, budget, staffing, and reporting requirements. Generate an onboarding checklist covering conflict clearance, engagement letter, OCG acknowledgment, e-billing setup, and platform access. Audit an existing instruction for completeness and produce a remediation note. Trigger on: 'which firm should handle this', 'instruct the firm', 'write the instruction', 'matter instruction template', 'onboard the firm', 'set up the matter', 'conflict check', 'e-billing setup', 'is our instruction complete', 'review our instruction', 'instruction gap', 'allocate this matter'.

Generates standalone interactive HTML "deal cards" that translate complex regulations into negotiation-ready reference tools, systematically distinguishing mandatory obligations from negotiable implementation choices. Use when the user needs an interactive regulatory guide for (1) contract negotiation support, (2) client education or internal training, (3) regulatory briefings for commercial stakeholders, or (4) structured comparison between required and flexible compliance paths. Primary focus on EU digital regulation (Data Act, AI Act, CRA, DORA, NIS2, GDPR) but the structural pattern transfers to any regulation where separating hard obligations from implementation choice is the point. Supports bilingual output where the jurisdiction calls for it.

Determines whether a specific AI-agent action, output, recommendation, or proposed commitment remains admissible for execution or institutional reliance under current authority, delegated scope, evidence, facts, policy, risk, escalation, and revocation conditions. Use this Skill before an enterprise or regulated AI agent executes, updates records, triggers workflows, communicates externally, or before an institution relies on an agentic output in a way that creates consequence.

Verification-first methodology for the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its Residual Special Court. Citations are verified against rscsl.org and legal-tools.org. Covers Taylor, the AFRC/CDF/RUF cases, the child-soldier and forced-marriage holdings, the head-of-State immunity decision, and the fixed-term (no life) penalty regime. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

Verification-first methodology for the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), Colombia's transitional justice court under the 2016 Acuerdo Final with FARC-EP. Citations are verified against jep.gov.co before use. Covers the 11 macrocasos (from Caso 01 secuestro through Caso 11 violencia sexual, including Caso 03 falsos positivos), the three sanction tiers (propias, alternativas, ordinarias), TOAR, and the SIVJRNR sister bodies (CEV, UBPD). Guards the key structural distinctions (Sala de Reconocimiento vs Tribunal para la Paz; comparecientes FARC-EP vs Fuerza Pública vs terceros civiles; Acto Legislativo 01/2017 vs Ley Estatutaria 1957/2019). Research aid, not legal advice.

Verifies UK case-law citations, pinpoint references and quotations against the official public register — The National Archives' Find Case Law — and statutory references against legislation.gov.uk, before a document that cites them is relied on, served or filed. Every check returns a graded verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH (the citation resolves to a different case — the classic AI miscitation), NOT ON REGISTER, OUTSIDE COVERAGE (the register cannot answer — absence proves nothing), or UNCHECKABLE (a law-report citation). The grading exists because there are two ways to get this wrong: citing a case that does not exist, and accusing a real case of not existing. Use when asked to check citations, verify a case exists, confirm a quotation is verbatim, check a pinpoint paragraph, audit a draft's authorities, screen a document for hallucinated cases, or check a statutory provision is in force. Not a substitute for reading the judgment: existence is not authority.

Argentine Supreme Court citation network analysis using JurisRank — a peer-reviewed PageRank algorithm with temporal decay for measuring jurisprudential authority. Ranks precedents by citation influence, traces doctrinal evolution, and detects constitutional drift. Published methodology: JCLLT (DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951). Activate with: which cases to cite, rank precedents, case authority, doctrinal evolution, Argentine Supreme Court, CSJN jurisprudence, citation network, leading case, legal research Argentina.

Collaboration platform configuration methodology for legal matter sites. Site architecture, workflow identification, dashboard design, data quality governance, and user adoption for SharePoint, Teams, and equivalent platforms. M365 is the reference implementation — outputs are platform-agnostic enough to brief IT or build simple automations without becoming a Power Automate manual. Use when setting up a matter site, identifying workflows to automate, designing reporting dashboards, managing platform data quality, or driving user adoption. Trigger on: 'set up the matter site', 'configure SharePoint', 'build a dashboard', 'what should we automate', 'brief IT on this workflow', 'nobody is using the platform', 'data quality is poor', 'set up Teams channel', 'matter site structure', 'alerts and notifications', 'user training', 'platform governance', 'status dashboard', 'what workflows can we automate', 'matter site template'.

a skill that determines whether a given subject matter qualifies for copyright protection under EU law by applying the Cofemel two-step test (concept of work + originality), grounded in fifteen CJEU judgments (including the most recent Mio/Konektra and Calinescu) and the four EU directive provisions on originality. It argues from one of two positions: pro-rightsholder (establishing that the work is original) or pro-alleged-infringer (contesting work status or originality via the four exclusion grounds — technical function, rule-dictated outcome, sweat of the brow, idea/functionality). It includes sector-specific modules for photography, software/GUI, sporting events, databases, applied art, functional texts, derivative works/critical editions, and multimedia works.

Complete sanctions and export control analysis tool — individual designations, sectoral sanctions, dual-use goods, payment systems (SWIFT/USD), and extraterritorial regimes (EAR/ITAR/ FDPR US, ECL China). Triggers: "is X sanctioned?", "can I do business with X?", "can I sell Y to Z?", "pétrole Russie", "biens à double usage", "gel des avoirs", "sanctions internationales", "liste OFAC", "liste UE", "double usage", "embargo", "licence d'exportation", "SWIFT", "paiement en dollars", "US goods", "FDPR", "EAR", "ITAR", "BIS", "ECL chine", "no re-export clause", "sanctions sectorielles", "puis-je travailler avec X?", or any transaction involving a foreign person, product, sector, destination country, or payment in USD/EUR. Always adapt to user profile. Always run for any sanctions or export control query — even vague or exploratory ones.

Assistant juridique expert en droit français. Recherches, consultations, rédaction d'actes, contre-argumentaires, analyses de contrats et de pièces, veille, vérification et harmonisation de références. Produit des documents Word (computer use) ou des réponses conversationnelles structurées. MCP : OpenLegi, Themia, LegalDataHunter. Déclencher pour toute question juridique, tout concept de droit français (contrat, responsabilité, jurisprudence, code civil, tribunal, indemnisation), toute question sur le droit de l'UE, la CJUE ou la CEDH, et toute demande de vérification ou harmonisation de références bibliographiques juridiques.

Analyzes how multiple regulations interact for a specific product, service, or business model. Identifies where obligations overlap, reinforce, complement, duplicate, or conflict; builds a priority matrix; produces an integrated compliance timeline; and estimates the total compliance burden. Use when (1) scoping a new product or service against the full regulatory landscape before launch, (2) conducting M&A due diligence on a target's multi-regulation exposure, (3) building a strategic compliance roadmap where single-regulation analyses miss the interactions, (4) advising on complex situations where regulations touch the same conduct from different angles, or (5) estimating budget and resourcing for multi-regulation compliance. Primary coverage of EU digital regulation (GDPR, Data Act, AI Act, CRA, NIS2, DORA, DMA, DSA, ePrivacy) and national implementations; the framework extends to any jurisdiction where overlapping regulatory regimes apply to the same activity.

EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artif

An end-to-end method for drafting and finalising a complex, multi-pillar regulated fintech agreement — from intake to signature. Authored from a senior fintech lawyer's manual: a licensed payment-services provider engaging a counterparty across agent cash-in/cash-out, QR payments, wallet e-payments, and a marketplace, each with its own regulatory profile. Runs five phases and fourteen steps: regulatory mapping (activity-to-licence matrix, grey-zone classification gates), architecture (framework-plus-sub-agreement structure, ring-fenced marketplace), the regulatory–commercial balance (what flexes vs what cannot), core drafting (authority, float mechanics, hard-coded regulator caps, liability — all tracking control), execution-blocker triage, and a pre-signature check closing open blockers as conditions precedent. It refuses to invent licence-specific values or draft a representation as true without executed evidence. Use it to structure, draft, negotiate, or review any regulated payments contract.

A drafting-and-review copilot for a founders' / co-founders' agreement — the terms fixing equity, vesting, IP, roles, control, deadlock, and departure between cofounders. Jurisdiction-agnostic, anchored on the Delaware C-corp default. Two modes: DRAFT (intake → equity & vesting → clauses → blocker triage → pre-signature check) and REVIEW (audit an existing agreement against an 18-clause checklist and red-flag scan). It handles the highest-dispute terms first-class: the equity split as documented reasoning (not a fake calculator), reverse vesting and the 83(b) clock, present-tense IP assignment (the Stanford v. Roche trap), leaver buyback and dead equity, and the deadlock clause most tools omit. It drafts for the venture, never one founder against another. Not legal advice.